The Center for Food Integrity Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204662713
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Gladstone, MO, USA
Phone
8163903367
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,757,166
Expenses
$1,999,200
Assets
$914,740
Liabilities
$850,047

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID FIKES (PRESIDENT)
  • BRYAN MALENIUS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHARLIE ARNOT (CEO)
  • MICKIE FRENCH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 11/2024))

People named in this filing

  • DAVID FIKES (PRESIDENT)
  • BRYAN MALENIUS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JIM ROBERGE (SECRETARY/TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To build consumer trust and confidence in today's food system by sharing accurate, balanced information, correcting misinformation, modeling best practices, and engaging stakeholders to address issues that are important to consumers.

What it reported doing in 2024

Corteva inclusion, diversity, and equity/government affairs: the center for food integrity (cfi) provides communications support to help corteva's government and industry affairs team effectively engage with various stakeholders including industry associations, policymakers, regulators, and consumers about the company's policy priorities. Cfi develops strategic plans, impactful messaging, and training programs that empower corteva's gaia representatives to advocate for a more favorable regulatory environment in which corteva and its farmer-customers can achieve their business goals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 77% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.1%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 48.4%; rating input score 48
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.93; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.1% of revenue deployed · 48.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $968K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 25 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $955K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.